A prof friend of mine, a strident feminist, is constantly dismayed when her female students constantly and overwhelmingly say not only are they going to take their husband's last name, but that they expect an engagement ring.

Nearly fifteen years removed from the dating game, I understand that it's growing in popularity for the woman to get the guy something approaching the value of the ring. Given the graduate rates and relative unemployment stats, I'd say that's a good trend, if truth. Just one question...where's MY !@#$% boat???

That's what I should have bought my betrothed. Four years after we got married, she was out in front of our house on the phone, walking the dog and absentmindedly spinning the ring around her finger. She lost it and, due to the time of year, there were heaps of dried leaves on the lawn and gutter.

Apparently, her crying and raking through the leaves drew the attention of our neighbors because there was an army of them out trying to help her, including one cop who happened by, when I got home.

Seeing so many people pitch in like that took my anger from redline-enraged down to manageable, smoldering ember.

Might be on to something with the mutual exchange thing ... still, if "conditional," it's pointless.

Just reading the good humored responses here, it dawns on me why some guys have "commitment issues." Now if the ladies were also "vested" they might have commitment issues of a similar nature.

Or both could could just say screw it, neither of us can afford it, and just do simple gold bands on wedding day. Been there, done that long ago. A diamond or CZ is a poor measure of love ... more a measure of the wallet. If a guy drops say $16 grand on a ring what is he saying?

Years ago, the Wall Street journal reported on a study of women who "upgraded" their engagement rings when they were able to afford bigger and better diamonds. It seems couples who do that have extraordinarily high divorce rates within a few years.

He's saying the bride-to-be better have good eye sight 'cause that ring is on the small side. I told my dearly beloved that I wanted a ring bigger than the one his first wife got and big enough to see without my glasses! Meow! Along with love, a sense of humor is a prerequisite to a good relationship.

A local writer named Louis Grizzard, married and divorced serially. Finally his friends told him that the next time he felt smitten by a pretty woman, that he should just buy her a huge house, and forget the marriage rigamarole.

That would have also saved Louis lots of money that hespent on diamond rings.

They way so many men just roll over and let feminism define our culture astounds me.

Newsflash: you can have children without being married. The two have nothing to do with each other any more. What, specifically, is the advantage of getting married before having children? I'm not seeing it.

Are you saying that you wouldn't love him if you weren't married to him?

Is your love for another person really sincere if it is contingent on a ceremony that is of no benefit to them whatsoever?

You seem to be saying, that it is advantageous to men because it gives them an opportunity to sacrifice their own best interests in the hope that it works out for them in the end. I submit that is a lousy value proposition.

What, specifically, is the advantage of getting married before having children? I'm not seeing it.

Have you ever been married or had children? It would be difficult to describe all of the subtleties involved with a wholly correct answer to your question.

Suffice to say that it is MUCH better to be a couple before you're a family. MUCH better. You get to grown closer together and figure out exactly where each person's strength/weaknesses are and, frankly, you get to figure them out during this period. If there is any doubt that your spouse is in the for the long haul, or if you question your own staying power (no pun), children will not make that situation any better.

There are an entire raft of things that single people take for granted that cannot be so treated once you're married. You've got to figure out those boundaries and responsibilities LONG before that baby comes home from the hospital...or Africa if you're Branjelina.

Having a newborn is hard enough, trust me, without being able to fully and unquestioningly being able to rely on your spouse.

Suffice to say that it is MUCH better to be a couple before you're a family. MUCH better. You get to grown closer together and figure out exactly where each person's strength/weaknesses are and, frankly, you get to figure them out during this period. If there is any doubt that your spouse is in the for the long haul, or if you question your own staying power (no pun), children will not make that situation any better.

Well, no shit. What does marriage have to do with this? Nothing, is what. Getting married itself imparts no actual knowledge about another person. Living together, sharing a house, getting to know a person: none of those things require marriage. Marriage doesn't even make any of those things substantively easier or more likely. Maybe this used to be the case, but the world has changed.

What, specifically, is the advantage of getting married before having children?

Flip the question around. What's the advantage of not being married? You're still on the hook for child support. The legal liabilities are still imposed on you. Meanwhile, your kid is being called a bastard in school, and your non-wife wife is constantly worried about your failure to stand up in public and declare your love.

Sounds like you've changed, but don't speak for everyone. You sound jaded about the topic, but don't think that it applies to everyone. For a number of reasons and even despite the ridiculously tipped scales men face these days, I still take the institution seriously. It's that extra layer of deep commitment (not love) that can keep people of like mind to keep going even when things get extremely tough.

If that's not for you, it's not for you, but it doesn't mean the rest of us are idiots.

Are you saying that you wouldn't love him if you weren't married to him?

I wouldn't have babies with him. He likes having babies.

Is your love for another person really sincere if it is contingent on a ceremony that is of no benefit to them whatsoever?

There's a huge benefit to him. The benefit is that I'm reserved (so is he) unto death, and I'll make a family with him. Marriage is not a mere ceremony. It is a lifetime commitment that comes with enormous costs for breaking it and enormous benefits for holding to it.

As to the specific question, yes and yes. I would not waste my time loving someone who didn't want a family, and I wouldn't have a family without first getting married to provide some insurance of stability in the family's foundational relationship.

Being boyfriend girlfriend is entirely different than being married. If you're not married, you can just leave. If you're married, there are major consequences to that. Marriage is, therefore, more stable.

There's a huge benefit to him. The benefit is that I'm reserved (so is he) unto death, and I'll make a family with him. Marriage is not a mere ceremony. It is a lifetime commitment that comes with enormous costs for breaking it and enormous benefits for holding to it.

For you, maybe, because you have honor and are trustworthy. But for someone without such honor, it really offers no protection at all, in fact it offers INCENTIVES to defect. In other words, marriage works for people who don't actually need it, and it doesn't for the people who really do. Which makes it utterly useless and stupid.

I am trying to tease out the difference between what the actual effects of marriage are, versus the pre-existing ethics of people who are predisposed to get married.

Let's go on a tangent for a moment. Do you acknowledge the phenomena of time being organic to the conscious mind, ie, time flies when you're having fun (or busy) but tends to crawl when you're bored or such, regardless of the intellectual fact that you know it's proceeding at exactly the same rate it always has?

Do you acknowledge the phenomena of time being organic to the conscious mind, ie, time flies when you're having fun (or busy) but tends to crawl when you're bored or such, regardless of the intellectual fact that you know it's proceeding at exactly the same rate it always has?

Our perception of time is imperfect, if that's what you're getting at. It's also been scientifically proven that our perception of time decreases as we age.

I'm glad to see the debate over the merits of marriage and children. I thought this thread was going to go down the sinkhole about the modern woman obviously giving back the ring so as not to impart a sense of dependence on the man.

If she does give the ring back, hopefully the jewelry store will give a full refund. I wonder if there's an expiration on the return date for a ring.

One of the jewelry stores here in STL runs a full spectrum of ads, but about every fourth one in the rotation, played in heavier rotation when there's a simulcast ball game on, I've noticed, is the one where they sell the point that they will give a refund for a called-off engagement. They never say full refund, but they are the only one I know of in town that does so.

Not at all. No reason for you to get married, but that doesn't apply to others. The point Freeman was making was that she was not going to commit to him without a commitment in return. That doesn't change how trustworthy she is or isn't, it's merely the bar she had set for herself.

You never answered my question. Have you been married and do you have any kids?

Also, for the record, canonical Vulcans do get often married. Interestingly, their marriages are usually arranged, so that marriage is about learning to love the person you are with, not trying to force someone you love to be with you.

Also, for the record, canonical Vulcans do get often married. Interestingly, their marriages are usually arranged, so that marriage is about learning to love the person you are with, not trying to force someone you love to be with you.

Not at all. No reason for you to get married, but that doesn't apply to others. The point Freeman was making was that she was not going to commit to him without a commitment in return. That doesn't change how trustworthy she is or isn't, it's merely the bar she had set for herself

It's a commitment without much meaning any more. Let two people jointly buy a house to live in: that's much more of a commitment in any real sense than a marriage license is.

You never answered my question. Have you been married and do you have any kids?

No, and no. Does that make me a bad person in your eyes? Foolish? Deluded? What is the relevance to this line of questioning?

No, and no. Does that make me a bad person in your eyes? Foolish? Deluded? What is the relevance to this line of questioning?

Were your parents divorced? Widowed?

Aside from that,

It's a commitment without much meaning any more. Let two people jointly buy a house to live in: that's much more of a commitment in any real sense than a marriage license is.

This is the singular most bullshit statement you've made so far. There is absolutely no way you can discern what a commitment means to Freeman, me or anyone else other than yourself. That fact that you've never been married and never had kids just compounds the error. You simply cannot know fully what you're talking about.

This doesn't make you a bad person. It just doesn't make you good enough to judge others. There are people in this world to whom honor and commitment mean a great deal. A marriage is the greatest commitment to those that hold those things dear.

I didn't get married because my parents were married. I didn't get married because my faith requires it. I got married because it is, day in and day out, immeasurably better. And that's just for me personally. That's not even getting into the benefits my children get from it or I do from my children with my spouse at my side.

Unfortunately, there are simply things that are extremely difficult to convey to someone that's not experienced them before and blog is one of the worst to attempt to do so. I pretty much said this upthread before we even got started. I find it puzzling that someone can be so deadset against something they really don't have any experience with. No amount of cultural osmosis is going to prepare you for dealing with your own situation, so its very difficult for someone on my end of things to sum it up for someone on yours.

No, my parents are happily married. But I suspect that they would be happy together even without being married.

On the other hand, I also know people - good, honorable people - who were devastated by a marriage gone bad, stripped of everything they worked for and future chances at happiness because they were too honorable to break their oath to a person who wasn't. We live in a society that largely doesn't value honor and loyalty any more, and as such our institutions - including marriage - increasingly reflect that fact.

I mean, I get that things can work out really wonderfully, if you're really lucky. But...that doesn't make it a rational pursuit. Lots of young black men dream about making it into the NBA and having a really great life. Most of them will be lucky to avoid prison. A responsible person - even a successful NBA player - would, I think, advise them not to plan their futures on that contingency.

I will add that the majority of my generational cohort that I know are not married. Of those that are, about half wouldn't recommend it. Of those that were and aren't any more, all of them regret it and wish they hadn't.

If that were the case, gay marriage wouldn't be such a contentious issue.

Sofa King, you seem like a bright guy, and I have no problem with your choices in life. Not at all.

But, I think you objectively underestimate marriage. It is a powerful force. Most people want to be married, whether you want to be or not. Awhile ago we were discussing divorce in an Althouse thread, and it was noted that once you got beyond the 50% divorce rate of first marriages, reliable stats show that anywhere from 75% to 85% of those people get married again. Those marriages endure at a high rate of success as well. Divorce sucks, but the allure of a good marriage is very powerful. That's not just my opinion; it's borne out in the actions of most people in this country.

If that were the case, gay marriage wouldn't be such a contentious issue.

It largely isn't, among people who are not already married.

But, I think you objectively underestimate marriage. It is a powerful force.

The force it has is only what the participants imbue it with, and no more. Actually, I would say that the force it has is only the minimum value of what either participant imbues it with, since it must be bilaterally entered but can be unilaterally exited. But as such, that makes it no different than any other commitment between two people, by any other name.

In other words, (sorry Tom) marriage is like a sewer: what you get out of it depends entirely on what you put into it.

I think one reason Sofa King can see no point to marriage is because many people today just give all of themselves away for free. When that is the case, there really IS no point to marriage. He also is probably deluded by what movies/TV shows have portrayed as couples "just growing apart," but are still great friends as divorcees. That doesn't really happen. One or both of them have broken their vows for the growing apart to happen.

On the ring discussion, when my husband and I decided to marry, we knew we would be really poor for a while, so I went with a relatively plain pearl ring. It was a heartbreak when I lost it a couple years later on a run. The stand-in ring is a few bands with little diamonds that we found at a greatly marked-down price. A huge diamond ring would be pretty, but it would not do much for our marriage.

Well, I'd say the continued allure of marriage makes it more of a cultural force that goes beyond how individuals within the culture may feel about it. Marriage has been under siege for decades now, but even people ideologically inclined to post-modern views of established religious norms like marriage still want to get married. I'd say it goes beyond how you intellectually view it, but appeals to a more primal sense. The numbers bear out that it is more than just two people brainwashed into it by their church/parents/ethnicity. If that were the case, then people wouldn't be getting remarried at the rate that they are.

Awhile ago we were discussing divorce in an Althouse thread, and it was noted that once you got beyond the 50% divorce rate of first marriages, reliable stats show that anywhere from 75% to 85% of those people get married again. Those marriages endure at a high rate of success as well.

This is something that is constantly overlooked when you hear the "more than half of all marriages end in divorce". That "all" is the key. It's a clue that the speaker/writer is being lazy and meant to say "first". The divorce rates for second marriages is extremely low when compared to firsts.

No, my parents are happily married. But I suspect that they would be happy together even without being married.

Have you asked them? Please do so. In fact, print them off and invite your parents to read your comments on this thread and have a meaningful discussion with them over a dinner of your choice. I would certainly read any post-mortem on that discussion.

I will add that the majority of my generational cohort that I know are not married. Of those that are, about half wouldn't recommend it. Of those that were and aren't any more, all of them regret it and wish they hadn't.

Appealing to an authority that doesn't exist doesn't bolster your argument. Are you talking twenties here? If so, that undercuts you even more given the extended childhood twentysomethings seem to be enjoying these days. Bear in mind that I've got a 21-year-old son in college, so I'm as well-versed at the opinions of his cohort as you are with the circles you run in.

It's highly unlikely that we're going to change your mind based on an internet blog thread and there's zero chance you're going to change ours. Here's hoping you find someone that you find you care about on a level you've never found yourself at before. Maybe a decade or so hence, you'll look back at your opinions from 2012 and realize what a fool you were.

If studies show that reduced sexual interest and desire occur in marriage, I'd speculate that the same would occur with any non-married, long-term, live-in couple. Throw in some kids, and yeah; things definitely slow down, but the joy that comes with a family more than makes up for it.

Imagine a hypothetical society with no cultural institution of "marriage." Is it your contention that nobody would enter long-term committed relationships? Or that it would be meaningfully more difficult to do so?

Hmmm. Good question. I can't think, off the top of my head, of a society with any recorded history where this was the case. Every society/culture that I can think of has had some sort of formal recognition and heirarchy of mating/pairing, whether polygamous, polyamorous, or monogamous.

So I guess my return question to you is, even as we evolved from cavemen, how is it that most, if not all, subsequent cultures established some sort of mating construct?

You seem to think that there is no marriage without a conscious, intellectual inclination; I say there's a much more visceral aspect that drives us to that inclination. Secular postmodernism actually relies on us using our intellect to override our impulses towards some sort of defined relationship that is recognized by the others in our 'tribe', for lack of a better word.

Imagine a hypothetical society with no cultural institution of "marriage." Is it your contention that nobody would enter long-term committed relationships? Or that it would be meaningfully more difficult to do so?

"Long-term committed relationships" sounds like marriage without the economic contract. Is the economic part of marriage the biggest reason people are shying away from it now?

And legal, I would say. Maybe that's the confusion here? I'm not arguing the futility of "marriage" in a general sense of family and long-term commitment. I'm arguing the futility of marriage the actual set of costs and benefits as it exists today in out society.

"I mean, I get that things can work out really wonderfully, if you're really lucky. [emphasis added]"

Sure, there's of course the sense that you can't control the future. But that statement might also betray an ignorance of the fact that there's a lot you can do to bias things in you're favor, it's hardly just a matter of luck.